Obama’s Disappointing First Choice

Obama’s Disappointing First Choice

House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican insiders in Washington are griping about President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to serve as White House chief of staff. Emanuel, they complain, is too partisan.

If only that were the case.

Partisan true believers stand strong for the ideals and principles of a party, they want to follow the dictates of the platform and stay in tune with grassroots activists.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican insiders in Washington are griping about President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to serve as White House chief of staff. Emanuel, they complain, is too partisan.

If only that were the case.

Partisan true believers stand strong for the ideals and principles of a party, they want to follow the dictates of the platform and stay in tune with grassroots activists.

That’s not a description of Rahm Emanuel.

In fact, Emanuel is the opposite of a partisan. He is someone who has worked very hard for a very long time – first in the Clinton administration and then in Congress — to change the Democratic party into a more cautious, centrist and compromised institution. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, he actually undercut efforts by progressive candidates who had a chance to win in order to advance the candidacies of more conservative candidates who lost.

Why? Because on the most vital issues–economic and trade policy, war and peace, civil liberties–this true believer in the worst compromises of the Clinton era has frequently been at odds with labor and progressive forces within the party.

So how worried should Democrats who want change they can believe in be about Obama’s decision to make Emanuel the face of the transition process?

Emanuel is best understood as a disappointing choice rather than a definitional selection.

If Emanuel was in line for a key Cabinet position (Treasury, Commerce, Labor or Agriculture), or for the job of US Trade Representative, there would be every reason to fret. In fact, it might well be appropriate to openly and aggressively challenge the appointment of someone so at odds with Democratic values and policy goals to any of those posts.

But a White House chief of staff is not, traditionally, a policy maker or implementer. Rather, the chief of staff is the member of the president’s inner circle who gets things done. A chief of staff who goes against the president’s instincts or goals, or who cannot work with people who hold views different from his own, does not last long.

Rahm Emanuel – whose selection owes more to shared Chicago connections than to shared ideology — is not being brought on to define the Obama administration.

It is Barack Obama’s job to do that. Emanuel’s job is to make sure that what the president wants done actually gets done. He’s good at that, and that is why the new president picked the congressman from his hometown.

Obama wanted someone he knew well, someone he had worked with in the past and someone who he was sure could get the job done to serve as his chief of staff.

He gets all that with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. But Emanuel is not going to be the president, Obama is. And if this administration adopts Emanuel’s compromised positions, it will not be the fault of the chief of staff. It will be the fault of the president.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x